German court officially stays Google injunction of iCloud push email

A German appeals court on Monday stayed the enforcement of an injunction Google's Motorola won against Apple's iCloud push email in the country, meaning services will likely resume in the near future.

An official from the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court confirmed to FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller that it granted Apple's motion to stay the enforcement of Motorola's injunction first won in February 2012. Germany has been without iCloud push email since the ruling was handed down by the Mannheim Regional Court.

In April, the court held appellate hearings over the injunction's merits and suggested Google's counsel stipulate a stay to the proceedings. At the time, it was incorrectly reported that the stay was for the enforcement of the injunction, which was obviously not the case.

Mueller notes that winning a stay over an appeal is much easier than doing the same for the enforcement of an injunction due to the way German courts view injunctive relief.

"In the U.S., the assumption is that the patent holder can usually be made whole through monetary compensation, so if there's too much doubt, enforcement isn't allowed," Mueller writes. "In Germany, the whole idea is that a patent is next to worthless unless you can enforce an injunction, and the victim of premature enforcement of an injunction that isn't upheld on appeal can always seek damages later."

Despite knowing the odds were stacked against it, Google continued to assert the injunction even after the stay on appellate hearings. The patent-in-suit was found invalid in two separate complaints Google leveled against Microsoft, the first by a UK court and the second by the same Mannheim court that first granted the injunction against Apple.

In addition, the Federal Patent Court of Germany, or Bundespatentgericht, stated a preliminary position that Google's patent was likely invalid. This prompted Apple to file its recent motion to stay the injunction's enforcement. A nullity hearing scheduled for November will likely see the property invalidated, which in Germany retroactively affects any prior rulings.

To reinstate push services, Apple is required to post a bond in case it goes bankrupt or Google pulls out a win when litigation over the patent is finally completed, both unlikely scenarios. Once the bond is posted, which should happen in the next few days, iCloud push email will be restored in the country.

The MotoMo purchase value just dropped another notch. I think after you subtract the MotoMo losses of about $2 billion since Google bought them, MotoMo should be worth about ten bucks and a handful of Popsicle Pete popsicle wrappers.

Now that we've seen the workmanship of the latest Moto phones, Google needs get out of the phone business completely.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

Note: When Motorola Mobility got the injunction last year Google did not own them. Google didn't buy MM to use their IP offensively to sue other tech neighbors and haven't done so, at least yet. I'll be surprised if they do.

Note: When Motorola Mobility got the injunction last year Google did not own them. Google didn't buy MM to use their IP offensively to sue other tech neighbors and haven't done so, at least yet. I'll be surprised if they do.

Note: When Motorola Mobility got the injunction last year Google did not own them. Google didn't buy MM to use their IP offensively to sue other tech neighbors and haven't done so, at least yet. I'll be surprised if they do.

So what?

Google didn't drop the case as a matter of principle, in fact they continued it.

Ergo Google are unprincipled, hypocritical sleazebags.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

... "In Germany, the whole idea is that a patent is next to worthless unless you can enforce an injunction, and the victim of premature enforcement of an injunction that isn't upheld on appeal can always seek damages later."

Despite knowing the odds were stacked against it, Google continued to assert the injunction even after the stay on appellate hearings. The patent-in-suit was found invalid in two separate complaints Google leveled against Microsoft, the first by a UK court and the second by the same Mannheim court that first granted the injunction against Apple.

In addition, the Federal Patent Court of Germany, or Bundespatentgericht, stated a preliminary position that Google's patent was likely invalid. This prompted Apple to file its recent motion to stay the injunction's enforcement. A nullity hearing scheduled for November will likely see the property invalidated, which in Germany retroactively affects any prior rulings.
...

So, is Google now in a position where Apple can file suit for wrongful injunction? How will the Fandroids react to this one??

So, is Google now in a position where Apple can file suit for wrongful injunction? How will the Fandroids react to this one??

They could do so if they wish, but not against Google. They were never involved in the lawsuit. It would be against Motorola Mobility if anything, and no idea if they'd have grounds to do so anyway.

By the way, Google has never leveled any legal complaints against Apple (or MS) counter to AI's claim, no more than Apple has filed any legal cases against Google. I know it sounds nice and plays well to the audience to say Google did such and such, but mixing and matching names attached to court cases does tend to confuse readers, just as it has you.Edited by Gatorguy - 9/4/13 at 7:06am

Seems to me that the move towards a one-world government (the bête noir of the right wing) will start via the justice system. Corporations, which are already represent a kind of de facto internationalism, will support anything that cleans up the diverse legal systems that they must deal with now.

They could do so if they wish, but not against Google. They were never involved in the lawsuit. It would be against Motorola Mobility if anything, and no idea if they'd have grounds to do so anyway.

By the way, Google has never leveled any legal complaints against Apple (or MS) counter to AI's claim, no more than Apple has filed any legal cases against Google. I know it sounds nice and plays well to the audience to say Google did such and such, but mixing and matching names attached to court cases does tend to confuse readers, just as it has you.

Google now owns Motorola Mobility, if Apple sues it will be against MM, Google being the parent company does not get to divest itself from liability. I also didn't say Apple could sue Google, if you refer back to my words, but ultimately, they are liable.

Google now owns Motorola Mobility, if Apple sues it will be against MM, Google being the parent company does not get to divest itself from liability. I also didn't say Apple could sue Google, if you refer back to my words, but ultimately, they are liable.

Hardly liable from what I've been reading. There are certain unusual situations, primarily environmental or criminal (ie bribery) or attempting to bypass trade restrictions with terrorist states, where a parent might be held at least partially liable for the actions of it's subsidiary, but this one doesn't appear to be any of those.

MM is a separately operated company, formerly a subsidiary of Motorola (who actually filed the original case) and now a subsidiary of Google. Microsoft thought they could argue about Google's obligations with regard to H.264 to reply to Motorola Mobility claims of IP infringement. Sorry. Google and Motorola are not one in the same as the Federal Court Judge advised them. Wanna include Google in a lawsuit? They gotta be named in the lawsuit.Edited by Gatorguy - 9/4/13 at 8:46am

Hardly liable. MM is a separately operated company, formerly a subsidiary of Motorola (who actually filed the original case) and now a subsidiary of Google. Microsoft thought they could argue about Google's obligations with regard to H.264 to reply to Motorola Mobility claims of IP infringement. Sorry. Google and Motorola are not one in the same as the Federal Court Judge advised them. Wanna include Google in a lawsuit? They gotta be named in the lawsuit.

Hardly liable. MM is a separately operated company, formerly a subsidiary of Motorola (who actually filed the original case) and now a subsidiary of Google. Microsoft thought they could argue about Google's obligations with regard to H.264 to reply to Motorola Mobility claims of IP infringement. Sorry. Google and Motorola are not one in the same as the Federal Court Judge advised them. Wanna include Google in a lawsuit? They gotta be named in the lawsuit.

Once again, you insist on babbling about things you don't understand.

Google has to approve major decisions made by Motorola. If the decision is material, it would be approved by Google. Florian makes exactly that point when he argues that Google could easily have chosen not to try to enforce the injunction, but they went after it with all barrels blazing.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Google has to approve major decisions made by Motorola. If the decision is material, it would be approved by Google. Florian makes exactly that point when he argues that Google could easily have chosen not to try to enforce the injunction, but they went after it with all barrels blazing.

You obviously misunderstand what the discussion we're having is about. Read the previous seven posts which have nothing to do with "gosh, Google coulda told MM to drop the injunction". I believe the OP is suggesting legal liability and any possible remedy Apple might request rests with Google proper as the owner of MM and should be filed against Google. Perhaps you can take a moment to comment on that instead of the red herring.Edited by Gatorguy - 9/4/13 at 9:25am

Google now owns Motorola Mobility, if Apple sues it will be against MM, Google being the parent company does not get to divest itself from liability. I also didn't say Apple could sue Google, if you refer back to my words, but ultimately, they are liable.

That part is totally wrong.

Motorola Mobility is a fully owned subsidiary of Google. As such, it is a separate corporation and even a trillion dollar lawsuit against MM (which this isn't) could not penetrate the corporate veil to make Google itself liable. Apple could sue MM for every penny they have and even win if they had a sufficient case, but can't get one cent more. Google can not be found liable.

That does not mean that Google is completely innocent. Google clearly directs MM's actions, but that doesn't make them legally liable.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

1. Google buying Motorola was a brilliant move as the extra cost helps them reduce their Tax liability. Saving a couple hundred millions by spending 12b is indeed a smart move.

2. Although Motorola was acquired by Google, it continue as a separate entity and Google do not have any saying in Moto's operational or strategic decisions. Moto can and do anything and Google have no liability and responsibility whatsoever. Any stupid and evil deeds before or after the acquisition is Moto's deeds, Google do not have any responsibility whatsoever. It's like a father and adult son relationshsip, the father can't be blamed for the son's acts.

You obviously misunderstand what the discussion we're having is about. Read the previous seven posts which have nothing to do with "gosh, Google coulda told MM to drop the injunction". I believe the OP is suggesting legal liability and any possible remedy Apple might request rests with Google proper as the owner of MM and should be filed against Google. Perhaps you can take a moment to comment on that instead of the red herring.

No, the legal liability discussion came later - and I've already addressed that.

I was responding to your assertion (see post #4, for example) that Google was the good guy here and never used IP against anyone else. That is demonstrably false.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

No, the legal liability discussion came later - and I've already addressed that.

I was responding to your assertion (see post #4, for example) that Google was the good guy here and never used IP against anyone else. That is demonstrably false.

If you were responding to post 4, why did you quote post 14??

But I'll agree that Google has asserted IP before. Google did sue british Telecom for IP infringement. The one and only IP lawsuit they've ever filed in the history of the company. They haven't brought a lawsuit against either Apple or Microsoft tho much as it seems you and a few others would wish they had. Further, even Motorola Mobility hasn't filed a new infringement lawsuit since Google purchased them the middle of last year. Would you say "give 'em time" or "that's an encouraging sign"?Edited by Gatorguy - 9/4/13 at 4:39pm

Yeah, basically the same thing. There is a legal separation but if I own a company and have that business purchase another company but keep them legally separated, if 2nd company goes under for whatever reason, I loose money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

...Google clearly directs MM's actions, but that doesn't make them legally liable.

Liable as used in my comments were not intended to mean they would be held accountable, just that their subsidiary would be held liable and as owners, it would hit their bottom line, just not the Google checkbook.

@gatorguy Google's do no evil is a BS mantra. Basically what it means is we will do everything thats evil but you dont do the same. Google is doing the dirty work via Moto. First of all they didnt sue anyone because they pretty well know Android is nothing but a cluster f***k of other OS.

They could do so if they wish, but not against Google. They were never involved in the lawsuit. It would be against Motorola Mobility if anything, and no idea if they'd have grounds to do so anyway.

By the way, Google has never leveled any legal complaints against Apple (or MS) counter to AI's claim, no more than Apple has filed any legal cases against Google. I know it sounds nice and plays well to the audience to say Google did such and such, but mixing and matching names attached to court cases does tend to confuse readers, just as it has you.